What Is Proselytizing?

[SalixIncendium]

**MOD POST**

Any discussion of moderation on the public forum is subject to moderation under Rule 2. If you would like to discuss previous moderation, please create a thread in Site Feedback.​

 

[SalixIncendium]

Should one take that at face value too? I've been here long enough to have seen the 'prophets' come and go, and although it might not have been proselytising (an accusation for which I would apologise if necessary), it falls into the realm of - look at my wonderful (unlikely) experience, so why not see what my religion can do for you. I'll keep my mouth shut in future and let the professionals get to work on such.

I think yes, unless the poster gives one a reason not to.

The OP has only shared a personal experience as of this post, and, as I see it, hasn't stumbled into the realm of prophecy.

 

[dybmh]

I think we're ignoring the title of the thread. The OP is stating he's confused and asking for help in understanding his experience.

Right. I was ignoring the title.

 

[dybmh]

There are a few members here on this site who just like the post long rambling posts of whatever it is on their mind, which often times only makes sense to themselves.

Agreed. But, I don't think that's what happened in this situation.

Must everything fit into neatly defined categories, such as "trolling", when it may just be that this is how they process their own internal stuff? I've seen more than a few post after post after post threads started by a few long-term members here which really amounts to not much more than them listening to the sound of their own voices.

Yeah, maybe you and I are talking about different threads, different RF'ers altogether....

Is that proselytizing or trolling, or something less insidious and devious as all that? Maybe RF serves as a sounding-board for themselves? Maybe it serves them in positive ways. You think everyone who posts here, is really about wanting to listen to others?

No. I don't think what you're describing is trolling.

If I know whom you are speaking about right now... those threads "which really amounts to not much more than them listening to the sound of their own voices." I think in some cases it's mental illness, and in other cases it's an attempt at channeling. See below:

The practice of channeling — a person's body being taken over by a spirit for the purpose of communication — has been around for millennia. There are countless stories of shamen, witch doctors, prophets and others who claim to hear voices or receive some supernatural knowledge from the spirit world. Channelers, also sometimes known as psychic mediums, often use what are called "spirit guides," friendly spirits who give them knowledge and help them on their spiritual journeys.

hyperlink >>> livescience.com - Channeling & Spirit Guides: Voices From Within, Not Beyond

 

[Mock Turtle]

Well he is spreading his message:

I am a living witness

 

[Koldo]

What factors would lead them to think this?

The post in question was fishy.
Something was off.

The title was asking what that experience meant, but the poster seemed to already know and then proceeded to say he had more to tell us later on.

The tactic of giving religious tidbits is typical of proselytism.

 

[dybmh]

Well he is spreading his message:

I am a living witness

Or....

Casting a wide net looking for answers...

 

[Mock Turtle]

Or....

Casting a wide net looking for answers...

Not complaining, and he is perfectly entitled to seek answers from wherever they might be available. But ...

 

[John D. Brey]

The tactic of giving religious tidbits is typical of proselytism.

. . . If an atheist gives argumentation, or scientific tidbits, as proof that there's no God, is he proselytizing for atheism? If a Christian and an atheist argue their particular points of view is that two profligate proselytizers going at it?



John

 

[Terry Sampson]

Well he is spreading his message:

I saw that shortly after his second post in RF, and the free flow of commentary is what convinced me that the writer was more overwhelmed by at least one experience, if not more, and hardly in any condition to proselytize.

 

[SalixIncendium]

. . . If an atheist gives argument and proof that there's no God is he proselytizing for atheism?



John

If the atheist's intent is to convert someone away from their faith, religion, or belief and s/he presents their argument as definitive fact, then yes, it would be considered proselytizing.

 

[bobhikes]

Definition of PROSELYTIZE

Yet, on the mere sight of a narrative of an Christian experience, with no apparent intent to convert anyone, more than one member cried "proselytizing."

Do you have a different definition than the one above for proselytizing? If so, where did you find it?

If it's your own definition, wouldn't using such a definition publicly with the expectation of others using the term the same way be a form of proselytizing itself?

Discuss.

Without seeing the thread if it was not responding to the op or some other post it was inducing there religious view point without a direct reasons and would be proselytizing. If it was an example to the op or a reply it would not be.

 

[dybmh]

If an atheist gives argumentation, or scientific tidbits, as proof that there's no God, is he proselytizing for atheism?

You didn't ask me, so forgive the interruption... but... Yes, it is proselytizing for atheism depending on the circumstances. Go ahead and report it when you see it.

If a Christian and an atheist argue their particular points of view is that two profligate proselytizers going at it?

That's a judgement call for the Mod team... but both sides of the argument might need to be reported to get the Mod's attention.

 

[dybmh]

I saw that shortly after his second post in RF, and the free flow of commentary is what convinced me that the writer was more overwhelmed by at least one experience, if not more, and hardly in any condition to proselytize.

If you're saying that the narrative is not fictional, I defer to your judgement. I thought it was disingenuous, but, I think you would know better than me.

 

[SalixIncendium]

If a Christian and an atheist argue their particular points of view is that two profligate proselytizers going at it?



John

You must have added this question after I responded to your post. Same answer. If the intent of both parties is to convert, and they are presenting their arguments as definitive fact, then yes. Otherwise, no.

 

[Koldo]

. . . If an atheist gives argumentation, or scientific tidbits, as proof that there's no God, is he proselytizing for atheism? If a Christian and an atheist argue their particular points of view is that two profligate proselytizers going at it?



John

Personally, I see proselytism strictly when one seeks to convert others to a group. So if I were a member of Atheist Alliance International, and I sought to turn you into a member too then that would count. On the other hand, merely seeking to turn you into an atheist or christian or muslim, wouldn't count as proselytism.

Otherwise, every single argument in favor or opposed to something would count as proselytism and then we wouldn't be able to have debates.

 

[John D. Brey]

If the atheist's intent is to convert someone away from their faith, religion, or belief and s/he presents their argument as definitive fact, then yes, it would be considered proselytizing.

. . . I often get into some pretty intense theological and scientific arguments in the brick and mortar world. One of the things I see that in my opinion is an utter and complete distortion of a healthy debate is when one or both sides of the debate start to make judgments concerning motive, or other internal states of mind, that are not really open to objective analysis through the dialogue taking place.

If a person believes strongly there's no God, and is willing to prove it in a well-thought out manner, using powerful argumentation, then naturally their strong belief, and willingness to back it up, can be interpreted as proselytizing even if their true motive is less to force anyone to believe what they say, and more simply to prove the veracity of what they say.

It's a fine line between proving the veracity of your belief versus trying to "convert" someone to that belief since argumentation always has some of the latter as a necessary ingredient of belief and argumentation. And it's a slippery slope, filled with moral hazard, rotting cabbage, and black-eyed peas, to deify either side of a debate as able to use 3D glasses to look into the secret motives of the other side of the debate. No person, imo, possesses the 3D glasses that can peer into motive.



John

 

[Koldo]

You must have added this question after I responded to your post. Same answer. If the intent of both parties is to convert, and they are presenting their arguments as definitive fact, then yes. Otherwise, no.

Considering how you interpret the term...
Wouldn't saying that life is worth living, as a definitive fact, to someone that is about to suicide, trying therefore to convince them to don't kill themselves count as proselytism?

 

[John D. Brey]

Personally, I see proselytism strictly when one seeks to convert others to a group. So if I were a member of Atheist Alliance International, and I sought to turn you into a member too then that would count. On the other hand, merely seeking to turn you into an atheist or christian or muslim, wouldn't count as proselytism.

Otherwise, every single argument in favor or opposed to something would count as proselytism and then we wouldn't be able to have debates.

. . . I pretty much agree with you. Especially your last point.

It seems absurd to say that someone who goes to great lengths to defend and prove their point of view is a proselytizer. I would say, with you, that an overt attempt to recruit someone into a clique, of any kind, is proselytizing, while any argument made to advance a belief, or prove a point, cannot be treated as proselytizing without creating terrible moral hazard.

In this sense there would be two errors that fall into the proselytization camp: overt recruiting for a clique or religion, and ad hominem attacks on other peoples' beliefs. It's one thing to argue your point powerfully, with passion, and unfailing belief in the veracity of one's beliefs, while it's another to attack, with ad hominem, the beliefs, or worse, person, on the other side of the dialogue.



John

 

[SalixIncendium]

Considering how you interpret the term...
Wouldn't saying that life is worth living, as a definitive fact, to someone that is about to suicide, trying therefore to convince them to don't kill themselves count as proselytism?

Not by my interpretation, but by definition.

How would one know if another's life is worth living if they haven't experienced another's life?